posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:35 PM
Originally posted by brice
reply to post by seachange
Martha's B @ B ain't gonna be donatin' nuttin', it's going to be the owner of that B @ B donating $5000.00 to the candidate of their choice, nothing
wrong with that, Just like the stockholders of corporations (not the corps.) can donate to the candidate of their choice.....get it?
No, I don't get it. I have no idea what you're talking about. The bill listed in the OP is all about screwing over both big business and small
business. Since 90% of businesses are small business, the bill screws over 90% of us while the other 10% will have the lawyers and/or lack of moral
values in some cases to skirt around the amendment. How could you support a bill that screws over the little guy?
The bill is a joke and the guy who wrote it is a liar. Read the thing. It starts off PRETENDING to apply to corporations and then comes out with the
truth that it applies to *ALL* private business interests. Why would it even bother to list "corporations" when in point of fact the text simply says
that to pander.
Okay after reading that a couple more times I see that you believe there is a division that means Martha issuing out a personal check is different
than Martha issuing out a business check, and the government will always automatically create such a magical division. Where in the amendment does it
say such a division exists? Nowhere, that is where. The amendment allows the judge to say "sorry Martha but you are a business person and the money
you give to candidates is business money". No such protection for Martha exists in the amendment to say there is a division there. Only you assume it.
Bad, bad, assumption. You know what they say about "assume", right?
For many legal purposes, sole proprietorships have no separation between the person owning them and their business! So, under that amendment it would
be constitutional to say sole proprietors are no longer allowed to give money to any candidates. This is disgusting! I'm sorry but that text is
undefendable. It has to apply to corporations and LLCs only, and not sole proprietorships! Or at least 90% of the smallest sole proprietorships.
Martha's B&B IS Martha for legal purposes. Get it? There is no difference by default between Martha and Martha's B&B for legal purposes! Only where
the law specifies there is a difference is there a difference. And no, this bill in question does not specify any difference!
edit - Most small businesses and nearly all start-ups are sole proprietorships. Look at what Wikipedia says about sole proprietorships:
A sole proprietorship, also known as the sole trader or simply a proprietorship, is a type of business entity that is owned and run by one
individual and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business.
So read that carefully and then compare it with your
comment. Its not possible for Martha, who happens to own Marthas B&B to donate $5,000 to Ron Paul without Martha's B&B also having donated $5,000 to
edit on 21-11-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)